cmps research school retreat pres by sutton
DESCRIPTION
Presentation for a research school workshop on publishing strategies.TRANSCRIPT
What happens to your article after submission? the Review Process, Ethics, Publishing Contracts, Dissemination and Open Access Caroline Sutton Publisher, Co-Action Publishing President, Open Access Scholarly Publisher’s Association (OASPA) with input from Helle Goldman, Editor-in-Chief, Polar Research Shared under a CCBY license
Lund University, CMPS Research School Retreat, Röstånga, 30 Aug. 2012
Many of these slides are based on a webinar presentation given by Helle Goldman and Caroline Sutton for APECS, Association of Polar Early Career Scientists. The video is available here: http://vimeo.com/39241330 Thank you to Editor-in-Chief Helle Goldman for permission to use her contributions in this presentation (slides 3-13). They have been modified from the original.
A bit about Co-Action Publishing
Founded by three former executives from academic publishing industry
Established as Swedish limited liability company in 2007
Founding Member Open Access Scholarly Publishers
Association, OASPA, current President Publish Open Access journals across disciplines, including
Social Sciences and the Humanities, but primarily medicine Strong focus on quality of experience publishing authors have
when working with us.
What happens to your ms after it’s submitted
(1) Ms is checked at editorial office.
(2) Editor invites reviewers (usually 2-5) Editor identifies reviewers from:
• people who have reviewed for the journal before • authors in the ms’s reference list • authors of relevant articles in ISI Web of Science • editor’s professional network • author’s suggestions (in cover letter or online submission form)
Tips 1) Read all the instructions/guidelines
2) Have your paper language edited if needed
3) May suggest reviewers or be asked to suggest reviewers
4) Anticipate what reviewers will say about your ms.
K.A. Nicholas & W. Gordon 2011. A quick guide to writing a solid
peer review. Eos, Transactions, American Geophysical Union 92, 233-234.
What happens to your ms after it’s submitted
(6) Revised submission is evaluated. The revised ms will then be straight-accepted, straight-rejected or more revisions will be asked for. Ms can go through several rounds of review/ revision. Depends on the journal’s editorial policy and manpower. (7) If accepted, you will probably be required to sign some kind of publishing agreement. (8) Paper is edited, copyedited, styled to layout, different formats generated, metadata added,
(9) You will receive proofs that you are usually expected to turn around quickly with your corrections. You may or may not get to see/correct revised proofs – practice varies.
(10) Published – and sent to database and indexing services, preserved, etc.
Understand your publishing agreement
Read your agreement with care.
Make sure you understand what the agreement permits you to do with the various versions of the article. In doubt? Get clarification from the publishers! Librarians are also very knowledgeable about this!
If you’re the corresponding author, ensure your co-authors have read and understood the terms of the agreement.
If you’re not the corr. author, make sure you’ve read and understood the agreement.
Make sure you understand your university’s and/or funder’s policies.
What happens to your ms after it’s submitted
(4) Editor assesses the reviews.
(3) Reviewers send in their reviews.
(5) Editor makes decision • Straight reject • Rejected, but paper can be resubmitted: a radical overhaul might salvage the paper. Editor isn’t confident you can pull it off but is willing to give you a chance. • Conditional acceptance: paper needs major or minor revisions; editor is fairly sure you can handle it but can’t commit to publishing it yet. • Straight accept. No changes needed. Rare!
• Submitted Manuscript under Review (SMuR), also known as Author’s Original Version or "preprint".
• Accepted Manuscript (AM), also known as "postprint". Not yet edited, copyedited or laid out. • Version of Record (VoR) or Definitive Work: fixed version of journal article. The final, corrected, laid-out version (may or may not include page numbers). Includes "early release" article that’s formally identified as having been published before the compilation of a volume issue – as long as it’s citable via a permanent identifier. Doesn’t include "early release” article that’s still undergoing copyediting, proof correction, layout changes.
Understand your publishing agreement
Source: NISO/ALPSP Journal Article Versions Technical Working Group 2008. Journal article versions (JAV): recommendations of the NISO/ALPSP JAV Technical Working Group. NISO-RP-8-2008. Baltimore: National Information Standards Organization. Available at www.niso.org/publications/rp/RP-8-2008.pdf
Most publishers’ agreements allow authors to do the following with Submitted (SMuR) and Accepted (AM) ("preprints" & "postprints”):
• pass around to colleagues • use in course packs • post on personal/institutional website/repository – often after a waiting ("embargo") period, e.g., 2 years
Source: S. Morris 2009. Journal authors’ rights: perception and reality. PRC Summary Paper 5. London: Publishing Research Consortium. Available at http://www.publishingresearch.net/author_rights.htm
Understand your publishing agreement
Most publishers’ agreements allow authors to do the following with the final published PDF (VoR) of their articles: • e-mail to colleagues • use in course packs
*Most authors think this is permitted.
Check: SHERPA/RoMEO http://www.sherpa.ac.uk/romeo/ for Publisher copyright policies and self-archiving
Librarians are also knowledgeable here!
Understand your publishing agreement
Most publishers (> 90%) do not allow authors to post final published PDF on personal/institutional website/repositories.* Source: Morris 2009.
Single-blind and double-blind review
See following article and references therein: R. Snodgrass 2006. Single- versus double-blind reviewing: an analysis of the literature. SIGMOD Record 35, 8-21. Available online: http://www.sigmod.org/publications/sigmod-record/0609/index.html
Single-blind review: the reviewers know who the author is, but the author doesn’t know who the reviewers are.
Double-blind review: reviewers don’t know who the author is; author doesn’t know who the reviewers are.
Ethics
• Salami slicing • Duplicate publication
M. Roig. 2006. Avoiding plagiarism, self-plagiarism, and other questionable writing practices: a guide to ethical writing. Available online at: http://facpub.stjohns.edu/~roigm/plagiarism/ Editorial. 2005. The cost of salami slicing. Nature Materials 4, 1. Available online at: http://www.nature.com/nmat/journal/v4/n1/full/nmat1305.html E. Wager & S. Kleinert 2010. Responsible research publication: international standards for authors. Available online at: http://publicationethics.org/international-standards-editors-and-authors Washington University in St. Louis: Policy for authorship on scientific and scholarly publications. Available online at: http://wustl.edu/policies/authorship.html
• Plagiarism/self-plagiarism • Fabricated data • Authorship
iThenticate, a new plagiarism tool used by leading publishers.
Public Library of Science OA lock
OPEN ACCESS = Free Access + Re-use
2 Routes to Open Access:
Green (archiving) Gold (publishing)
Achieving Open Access through the self archiving of peer-reviewed journal articles.
Different publishers have different policies on deposition of articles (as noted earlier in presentation)
List and policies available at SHERPA-RoMEO (www.sherpa.ac.uk/romeo)
Institutional OA policies/mandates
The ”Green Road”
The ”Gold Road” Publish with an Open Access journal that provides: Immediate free access Re-use of content (CCBY license, or CCNC)
Deposit final published article in repository
Creative Commons Licenses enable re-use rights
Attribution 3.0 (CCBY or CCAL) • Gaining momentum as
a standard. Attribution-
Noncommercial 3.0 (CCBY-NC) * Controversial due to lack
of clarity over what is commercial use & ’double-dipping’.
Read and learn about them here: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/
What does a CCBY license mean for authors? You are welcome to post any version of your article – including the final PDF – anywhere you like, including institutional and other repositories. Your work can be re-used – in part or in whole – by others, as long as they cite your work as the original source. This means wider distribution.
You can re-use your work in part or in whole, without asking permission from the publisher.
Open Access journals, that are machine readable, tend to experience high levels of usage. For authors, this means a greater likelihood of work being read and cited.
A few Open Access myths
Truth: The most common fee is NO fee. Averages are lower than what tend to be cited, and a growing number of funds are supporting researchers. Study by Bo-Christer Björk and David Solomon shows that the average charge per article across disciplines is 906 USD. ‘A study of open access journals using article processing charges’, DOI: 10.1002/asi.22673 Paying for an Open Choice option on a subscription journal can be costly. When paying an APC do make sure that you know what you are paying for, i.e. that the article will be published under a CC license.
Myth 1: It is expensive to publish in an Open Access journal
Myth 2: Open Access journals are not peer reviewed/ publish low quality work
TRUTH: Open Access journals ARE peer reviewed.
Serious editors and publishers of Open Access journals are concerned with publishing quality manuscripts.
Reputable Open Access publishers have mechanisms in place to separate editorial decisions and ability to pay.
The emergence of many new actors within the publishing sector has created confusion. OASPA membership criteria and code of conduct can provide a guide to evaluating unfamiliar publishers:
Credible editorial board listed with full names and affiliations Any fees are easily identifiable Licensing is clear and can be found on individual articles Peer review process is clearly defined Business address listed Complaints address listed Ownership information available Clean layout, appropriate use of language on website
Myth 3: Publishing your work Open Access is good for society but there are few benefits for you
TRUTH: there are important advantages for you Citation advantage (See The Open Access Scholarly Information Sourcebook, http://www.openoasis.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=560&Itemid=391)
General usage increases, and the number of points from which your article can be accessed also increases.
Greater visibility.
Better rankings in Google Scholar.
Practitioners and others outside of the research community can access and use your work, leading to impact beyond citations.
How is Open Access impacting other areas of scholarly
communications?
Article level metrics
Mackay DF, Nelson SM, Haw SJ, Pell JP (2012) PLoS Med 9(3): e1001175. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1001175
www.total-impact.org
http://scholar.google.com/citations
New Forms of Peer Review Open Peer Review
Post publication review
Commenting & ratings systems
Others
The rise of ”mega journals”. Following PLoS One example, peer review only to address scientific rigor, not potential importance or impact.
Open data and linking Some references: Science Commons Protocol for implementing: http://sciencecommons.org/projects/publishing/open-access-data-protocol/ List of data repositories: http://oad.simmons.edu/oadwiki/Data_repositories OpenAIRE Plus: http://www.openaire.eu/ John Willbanks: http://www.slideshare.net/wilbanks/openphacts-wilbanks
Challenges: Requires adoption of new behavior for most researchers Difficult to devise universal policies across disciplines Legal issues Technical issues
Re-use to enhance scientific discovery
http://imageweb.zoo.ox.ac.uk/pub/2008/plospaper/latest/#top
